|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/19/2008 5:02:02 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 958
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
GMC SAID: This is a good, but lengthy thread. I have read some, but not all. That said, I will share my synopsis.
The Old Testament Law pointed out that we need a Savior, but offered no forgiveness of sin.
Jesus declared that He came to fulfill the law, not add to it. To that end, He gave us the Great Commandments which I sumarize as "Love God and love people".
The New Testament points out that we are saved by God's grace, our faith in and our believing in Jesus, not by keeping 613 Laws from the Old Testament.
I'm sorry I must respond to this one...No forgiveness in the OT?  How did David get forgiveness?
What about 2 Chronicles 7:14,Jeremiah 3:14 et al? What was Abba YAH's purpose in sending prophets to Israel in the TaNaKH? What about King Hezekiah? I think you may want to rethink your last post...Elohim has always been and will be a loving and forgiving Elohim.
Please read Exodus 34:6-7at least 7 times and post back with your response to this post. Thanks!!
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/19/2008 7:04:48 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 978
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
gmc probably meant it in this vein...
"38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:38-39)
I think we all agree the old covenant was an inadequate means through which one could be reconciled to God.
"3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man..." (Romans 8:3)
"11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?" (Heb. 7:11)
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/19/2008 7:46:56 PM
|
|
|
bjay0801
Posts: 144
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
|
Good point Sponge. Torah was NEVER meant to be used for forgivness of sin or for redeeming man. G-d just said just do as I say and you will be blessed. Remember how long it took for G-d to pass judgment on people? He always sent warning after warning to His people to repent and turn from the ways of the world, and follow HIS ways. The prophets just didnt appear for a few months and disapear. They prophesied for years on top of years and then the major prophets were killed by their own brethern and after their prophesies concerning judgement happend, thats when the people knew they were telling the truth. Even the ones who were respected (ie. Ezekiel) was not always heard. It was G-d who first gave the torah to the people and it was G-d who always had mercy upon the people even when they turned away from Him.
_____________________________
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/19/2008 7:52:32 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Bluethread in 4313
quote:
You have missed one vital bit of evidence my dear Holmes. In your deduction of the proper implimentation of the death penalty, you have left out the bibilical method of due process, which Yeshua clarifies by saying (Mt 18:15-17) "If your ...... treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." So, we see social judgement is the responsibility of the community and eternel judgement is the right of Adonai.
Consider. You don't want Sabbath breakers in your community so you have to judge them somehow. If you decide they have broken the Sabbath and put them out of the community, then you have violated Romans 14 by judging them. Don't you see that?
Besides, there is NO command to implement of the death penalty in the church. None. Zilch. Nada. In the New Covenant, if a brother disagrees with another with regard to the Sabbath or something else, he's not even to be judged.
quote:
As I quoted Yeshua before, there is a third alternative, bring it before the community, if the community judges wrongly, them Adonai will judge the community.
So you NEVER inplement the death penalty? Never? It is certainly a possibility if you think you are under the law. (Numbers 15:32-36)
quote:
Either way, we can then observe Lev19:18 "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.
Uh. That's talking about personal conflict. It is not talking about commands which the community is supposed to address.
That last is my point. I do not have the authortity myself and according to Lev. 19 the violation of Ha Torah is a personal conflict. It is not loving to allow ones brother to continue in error. So, biblical due process does apply. If my community was the controlling legal authority, we could more closely follow Ha Torah. However, iin the USA we are not, so we do what we can, as Yeshua interprets it.
Also, Yeshua tells us to (Mt 18:17) "treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Ha Torah tells us that we are to have one law for both the citizen and the sojourner. Yeshua was familiar with that. Had he meant to abolish the death penalty, He would have said so. Nowhere does He say that. None. Zilch. Nada. The sojourner may flee, but otherwise he is subject to the jurisdiction of the community. As I stated before, that is to the extent the community is permitted to have jurisdiction.
quote:
Implementing the death penalty against sorcerers is not "revenge." I suppose people might abuse it as an excuse for another personal conflict or friction. But that other issue is not what we are talking about when we are discussing the death penalty.
Yes, that is true executing someone after they are found guilty with due process is not "revenge". However, executing someone without due process could very well be revenge. That judgement to would be subject to due process. In both of these cases one is not judging ones brother. The community is acting as arbitor as Adonai directs and implimenting His directives here on earth.
quote:
quote:
I am the Lord." Someone who does not observe Shabbat would not be meeting with my community on Shabbat anyway.
Oh really? I suppose no one ever sins in your community. Give me a break. I don't buy it for a moment. Your community must be more perfect the early church.
Please, be careful with your quotes, I am not saying I am the lord, nor am I quoting Adonai in the above reference.
Now, I am not saying everybody keeps Shabbat as you may interpret keeping. I can not comment on "keeping" as you may define it, because I do not recall you doing so.
Before I was part of the community I violated Shabbat and that was pointed out to me. Since I have been part of the community none has accused me, nor have I seen the need to accuse another in the community of violating Shabbat in a way that is clearly forbidden by Ha Torah. I do not accuse someone of violating Ha Torah just because that one does not interpret it in the same way I do. If one in our group is seen doing something that someone sees as not in keeping with Shabbat, we discuss it and learn.
quote:
quote:
As I pointed out in other post, nothing is "required" as you seem to define it, not even Paul's admonitions. Everything a follower of Yeshua does is in response to Ruach Ha Chedosh(The Holy Spirit) and we know He is Ruach Ha Chedosh because He is in agreement with Ha Torah(The Word) become flesh Yeshua Ha Meshiach. WWJD
And that means what? That the HS would tell someone to do something different from what the scripture says?
No, in fact that could very well be my question to you.
quote:
quote:
Samuel arrived in Bethlehem and invited Jesse to come with him to sacrifice, presumably in the tabernacle. Do you have any other verse that states to the contrary?
Are you arguing from silence?
No more than you are. You presume Samuel did not sacrifice in the appointed place, even though the Scriptures do not say that. I presume he did because Adonai calls him a rightious man and that is what a rightious man would do, unless Adonai was to tell him directly to do otherwise.
QUOTE
It's still there in I Samuel 4 (see notes) during the days of Eli. That's when the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant parted company. The Israelites decided they could prevail over the Philistines in battle if they carried the ark of the covenant with them. The plan failed; they lost the ark. From that point forward, the ark of the covenant never resided in the tabernacle built by Moses again.
We see the tabernacle the next time in Nob (an unidentified city close to Jerusalem) in I Samuel 21 (see notes) - no details on how it got there. After Saul has the city and the priests destroyed (I Samuel 22, see notes), we later see the tabernacle has been set up in Gibeon (approximately 5 miles northwest of Jerusalem) during Zadok's tenure (I Chronicles 16:39-40, see notes). It appears that with two high priests serving at that time, Zadok seems to have been fulfilling his duties at the original tabernacle built by Moses in Gibeon while Abiathar served in Jerusalem. Even after Abiathar was relieved of his duties as high priest by Solomon, we see King Solomon going to Gibeon to sacrifice there at the original tabernacle in II Chronicles 1:3 (see notes). Moses' tabernacle is last mentioned in I Chronicles 21:29, and still resides at Gibeon at that point in time.
UNQUOTE
This is interesting. I am not permitted to justify my arguements with the Tanach(old testiment) since you do not consider them valid. Yet, I am supposed to accept nonscripture references as valid. That said, I don't see where this commentary proves Samuel did not sacrifice in the appointed place.
quote:
quote:
David's sacrifice was at the direct command of Adonai through His prophet. Is there a prophet of Adonai, who himself is willing to face stoning, who has recieved word from Adonai that I am to make a sacrifice anywhere but the temple in Jerusalem? Tell me, so that I may examine him to see if he is indeed a prophet of Adonai.
So it is possible, isn't it?
It is possible that Adonai could come to me today and tell me to make a sacrifice in my backyard. I find it extremely unlikely, but it is possible. That is why Ha Torah provides for due process.
quote:
quote:
You did not answer the question, how do we know what is food? Is anything I put in my mouth food, ie broken glass, dog poo,or even another human being?
I didn't consider it a serious question. You cannot seriously expect me to believe you think Paul is talking about broken glass when he says "all things [foods] are clean." How could eating broken glass or dog poo cause a brother to stumble?
Of course I don't. I believe he is talking about foods, more specifically meats, that Ha Torah recognizes as food. In context he is talking about how something was used prior to acquisition, not the nature of the thing itself. In fact, that is his point. Offering something to an idol does not change its character as food. Ha Torah defines it's character as food. If I were new to the faith, I would question the credability of someone who ate broken glass or dog poo.
quote:
Of course, broken glass or dog poo wouldn't be considered kosher. There are things that could be made clean, like inanimate objects fit for ritual use--but they would never be converted into food. They don't fall into the category of things that are intended to nourish the body.
Had I said iron powder or blood, you may very well have said that was perfectly fine. Then, I would have had to keep guessing where you draw the line until we reached the point at which you would say, "I didn't consider it a serious question." So, please answer the main question? If one rejects the Torah definition of food, how does one determine what is "intended to nourish the body"? Intention implies someone with intent. Who is that someone?
quote:
Please don't embarrass yourself further by asking such questions--unless you are trying to play games and prolong the agony of your ridiculous interpretations of Romans 14.
I am not embarrased. However, I am a little tired of attempts to prejudize the issue with personal attacks and depricating adjectives. An arguement is not ridiculous just because some one choose to ridicule it.
quote:
quote:
Yes, people have been misintepreting Adonai for much more than 2000 yrs. As we see in the time of the judges, (Judges 17:6) In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. History has indeed repeated itself, as recorded in the Decameron, the records of the inquisisions and the holocaust, just to name a few examples.
Yet you insist your interpretation of Hebrew 8 does not put us into the New Covenant? That, in spite of the fact that Paul said he is a minister of the New Covenant? 2 Cor. 3:6..
I do believe the new covenant is being fulfilled as Adonai writes Ha Torah on our hearts as Jeremiah tells us. I also believe Paul is a minister of the new covenant, encouraging us to understand Ha Torah correctly and apply it to our lives such that no man need instruct another.
quote:
quote:
Must we continue with this endless proof texting.
I notice you object only when I "proof text," but you never admit when you get caught proof text and get caught out of context. A little consistency here or don't bother me with your objections about "proof-texting".
I try at all times to include the reference if not the scripture and the conext whenever I refer to it. When I am made aware of the context I address it. Just because I do not reach the same conclusions as you, does not mean I am taking it out of context. Now, I do not want to get into a slug fest. All I am asking is that we take the time to get references correct and not use shorthand references as proof presuming that our point has been accepted just because we presented it.
quote:
quote:
If you were following the dictates of Lev. 18 and were lovingly correcting my behavior, this might make some sence. But, since you have clearly stated that you think these things are not applicable, this is nothing more than an inquisision.
So you're judging my motives?
3/4 of the OT Torah CANNOT be applied directly!!! You pick and choose those parts which you want to obey and those parts you cannot.
I don't think you're serious when you write your signature line saying: ""Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)"
I think you just made your motives quite clear. Just because I do not accept your veiw does not mean you have proven me wrong. I have answered each of your questions and I have not stopped the conversation. Admittedly, some of Ha Torah can not be done due to circumstance. But, Daniel was in similar circumstances yet he avoided the Kings table for the sake of Torah. I can not use my circumstances as an excuse for not doing what I can to show my graditude to Adonai.
quote:
When I speak of things being "obligatory," I am talking about what God is expecting us to do. Its purpose, consequences or punishments for failure to do so is another matter. If God expects us to do something, whether or not there is punishment, it shouldn't matter. We should do that thing.
If He tells people not to judge someone over a certain thing, I don't consider that thing obligatory. IOW, we don't have to. And those people implementing the punishment would be completely wrong. If God tells us to implement punishment or consequences, then we shouldn't try to figure out if we're supposed to do it. In some cases there may be a choice of punishment. But otherwise, we just do it.
According to this "God said it, I believe it and that settles it." hermanutics is determining what Adonai really said. If there is an apparent contradiction in the Scriptures, what are we to do? If we can just throw out the "old" and accept the "new", as you appear to be saying Paul is doing, why can't the Pope, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, or any of a number of professed "christian" leaders do the same thing? If we are being told we did not understand the covenant that is one thing, but to say that Adonai has changed the covenant without varifiable clear revelation, is another thing.
I am trying my best to consolidate these issues as much as possible. These discussions are getting rather drawn out, so if we could try to focus on a few points at at time, it moight make it easier to respond in t timely fashion.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 8/21/2008 5:56:33 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/19/2008 8:29:05 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
Good point Sponge. Torah was NEVER meant to be used for forgivness of sin or for redeeming man. G-d just said just do as I say and you will be blessed. Remember how long it took for G-d to pass judgment on people? He always sent warning after warning to His people to repent and turn from the ways of the world, and follow HIS ways. The prophets just didnt appear for a few months and disapear. They prophesied for years on top of years and then the major prophets were killed by their own brethern and after their prophesies concerning judgement happend, thats when the people knew they were telling the truth. Even the ones who were respected (ie. Ezekiel) was not always heard. It was G-d who first gave the torah to the people and it was G-d who always had mercy upon the people even when they turned away from Him.
Say Jesus said that things weren't to kind to Israel in those days of the prophets. In fact he allowed a drought in the land for three and half years. He also said that there was many of widows for Elijah to visit. But Elijah only went to a widow in Sidon. And many had leporsy in Israel but there was only one healed which was Naaman of Aram. So he may have have had mercy on them but they didn't want any part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2008 4:24:08 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Bluethread, I can't believe you wrote this;
quote:
Samuel arrived in Bethlehem and invited Jesse to come with him to sacrifice, presumably in the tabernacle. Do you have any other verse that states to the contrary?
Where in the world do you get that Samuel was carrying the Tent of meeting around. At that time in Israel's history the tent was at Bethel possible or Ramah. Which Ramal was Samuel's home town. He took a heifer with him so that in case Saul got suspicious about the matter. Samuel would have a albi for his trip. The only requirement to have a alter in that day to sacrific on, was that no hammer or chisel could touch the stones.
Sorry, if it is confusing to you. I was presuming an hyperliteral interpretation of the Scriptures. It has become necessary to argue from such a position to avoid repeated acusations that, "but the law requires", even if the law could be interpreted differently.
My point is that the passage does not say exactly where the sacrifice took place, so it is presumptious to say the Samuel did not make the sacrifice in the(an) appropriate place.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2008 5:02:10 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
This computer of my is ready to have my fustration taken out on it. It is driving me nuts 
I don't know if it change to having the sacrific at only one spot. But at that time God allowed humans to make a alter with stones. The only requirement for it was no hammer or chisel to touch the stones. Which would probably lead to man to make a image of some sorts. If he was allowed to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2008 7:58:40 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Look. Let's get real. The context of Torah has to be considered in your interpretation just as mine does. We simply interpret and apply direct commands differently. But just because Jews considered Genesis a part of Torah does not obligate me to observe the Saturday Sabbath any more than it does to obligate either of us to build an Ark and start bringing every species of animals in it.
Now that we are in the proper thread we no longer need to tie our arguments to Shabbat. So, we both know the main difference between us on Shabbat is the fact that you do not believe that Ha Torah is a proper representation of the relationship between Adonai and man. So, let's focus on that directly and subordinate Shabbat to an example. So we can shelve the issue regarding whether Shabbat was kept prior to Sinai, unless this impact life after Sinai.
quote:
quote:
Then why were Annanias and Sephira cursed?
Annas and Saphira were a specific incidence. Lying is not universally a life and death issue. I don't take from their example the threat of death when I lie. I can take from it the fact that God can do such a thing when he wants to. The next time an Apostle comes to me and demands the truth from me, I will consider that a lie might mean the death penalty for me.
I don't think every liar in the Bible was executed by the HS. Therefore, it is not a universal. I interpret it as a specific incident that happened then, but is not liable to happen always.
They were put to death. There is only one reason given: They lied to Peter, God's representative. And, by default, were considered to have been trying to lie to the HS.
If I recall, my point was that there is a law that applies in the time of tha Apistolic writtings. On what is that law based?
quote:
I do not consider the historical, grammatical, literal method of interpretation to be flawless. It is just the best tool I have, so I use it. The NT passages are easier because they more often display things that can be interpreted from a western mindset. I have to interpret Paul's words historically and grammatically in order to make sense of them. It is not always so with the OT.
In any event, the NT interprets the OT. What comes before is surpassed by the latter. We must be careful not to interpret the older words anachronistically, which is what the sabbatarian do sometimes.
I do not understand why one can not use the same method of interpretation throughout the Scriptures.
To me interpret means clarify not superceed. Paul himself speaks of the principle of building on a foundation. This is a princilple that echos Isaiah 28:16 "So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed". Here Isaiah is rebuking those who do not interpret Ha Torah correctly. In the same way Paul tells us use what has been established to confirm the "new". 1 Cor 3:10 "By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds." Paul bases his teaching on that of Yeshua and Yeshua bases His teach on Ha Torah, indeed He is Ha Torah dwelling among us.
quote:
quote:
You have a right to your narrow opinion, I believe we are to observe it as Ha Ruach(The Spirit) directs. This is what I believe Pauls is saying regarding the keeping of Shabbat. How one keeps it is not clearly defined in the written Torah. Therefore, I can not require anyone to keep it using the traditions I employ.
The Holy Spirit would not direct someone to keep something that the scripture tells him that he doesn't have to.
So, we disagree on whether one should keep Shabbat or not. If you are saying Paul could not be talking about us not judging how one keep Shabbat, because you believe it is not what Adonai desires, that is hardly convincing proof. However, you have a right to you opinion.
quote:
quote:
If we are bound to Adonai, of course we are to live as he wishes us to. However, to look at the "literal" written word of Adonai is to miss His intent. So, I use the written Torah as directed by His Spirit to determine what Adonai requires of me.
What is the point in quoting the Torah if He intends something different?
Why do you look at a mirror? It doesn't reflect your true image either.
quote:
quote:
I to have been declared righteous apart from the works of the law.
Do you believe you are cursed if you disobey the law? Are you righteous AND cursed or are you righteous but not cursed--if you disobey it?
I believe I am no longer under The Curse that leads to eturnal death. However, I do endure the consequences(curse) of unrightious actions I have done in my past.
quote:
Do you no longer believe I am cursed? As you have indicated before you must believe that non-sabbatarians will be cursed. And no matter how "righteous" you are, you expect to be cursed if you violate the sabbath. Right?
I believe anyone who does not live as Adonai desires him to bears the consequences of those actions in this life, unless Adonai graciously relievs them of such consequences.
quote:
If you believe you are declared righteous apart from the law, how are you any different from those people of the OT? Weren't they righteous apart from the law too? They had to keep the law but they weren't saved through it either.
Exactly my point. If one wishes Adonai's blessings, he should to live as Adonai directs. However, Adonai is gracious to us and treats us better than we deserve.
quote:
quote:
I also, observe Shabbat as I believe he requires of His peculiar people. I do not acknowledge "saturday" except to recognize that term is used by many who seem to have no problem with its idolatrious derivation. If you believe that "God does not condemn me nor does He demand that I do it", go in peace and may Adonai judge.
It's only a word. I combine the word Saturday Sabbath in order to differentiate between those who refer to Sunday as the Sabbath.
Sabbath by definition is the seventh day or the appointed times, to translate it otherwise is inaccurate. Therefore, you need not misuse the term when you are talking to me.
quote:
quote:
This does not mean He gave up observing Ha Torah for the sake of evangelism.
I didn't say he did. But it tells us what his motives for obeying the law were. And his motives for obeying the law were evangelism. I happen to believe he did observe the Law. Scripture seems rather directly clear on that. But he never once tells us that he observes it because he believes God expects him to be under the law. Never once. Scripture only gives us a single motivation and scripture is silent regarding any other motivations.
One need not have just one motivation for doing something. When I am talking about how to releive myself on a trip, I will say I stop at gas stations to do that. That does not mean I never stop at a gas station unless I need to relieve myself. Paul is talking about evangelism, in the context of evangelism he makes concessions to various groups of people. This does not mean he sacrifices to idols to win over idoliters.
quote:
quote:
quote:
"Giving people time to learn" is a complete invention of yours! You made that up. The text no where even suggests that.
So, what is meant in Rom 14 by every one being convinced in his own mind?
It means that God does not obligate us to refrain from pork or shell fish. Nor does God obligate us to keep the Saturday Sabbath. Any of those things are permissible so long as we are fully convinced in our minds that we are doing the right thing in sincerity and devotion to God. Sincerity is the key with regard to those things in Rom. 14.
The text no where even suggests eating pork or shell fish any more than it suggests eating blood or iron powder. I believe if one is sincerely seeking to please Adonai, he will see that a Torah life style is correct. As I said before, if you disagree go in peace.
quote:
Col 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
This looks like a salvation context to me.
quote:
Just because a discussion of salvation is near in proximity does not make the context of verse 16 salvific in the way you suggest. I checked three different translations and all of them begin verse 16 with a new paragraph. The word "therefore" at the beginning of verse 16 signals a conclusion to be drawn from the previous doctrinal instruction.
The "therefore" tells us how to apply the earlier verses about salvation. Paul does much the same thing (apply a particular doctrine) in Eph. 4:1---another subject altogether, but enlightening as to how he uses the word "therefore."
Yes, therefore, because salvation is based on somwthing else we are not to make any judgements regarding ones salvation based on recognition of particular days.
quote:
quote:
If he is at Torah study on Shabbat, I presume he is interested in keeping Shabbat. If he is talking to me on the street, I will talk to him as I am talking to you.
So you would instruct him to do something that the new covenant (vis a vis Romans 14) doesn't require? Will respond to the rest later.
I would instruct him in the Scriptures as I understand them. If you recall, I have not accepted youy interpretation of that passage.
quote:
I interpret the "Sabbath rest" as salvation.
If that were the case then it would not be a "Sabbath rest" but an indefinate or eturnal rest. I know of no place where such a concept is applied to Shabbat.
quote:
I accept all 66 books of the Bible (29 OT, and 27 NT) as the Word of God. Obviously, not everything is equally applicable. If it was, then there would be logical contradictions in interpretation.
I am not sure waht you mean by that. However, when there are apparent contradictions, I look at the context of each passage, determine its credibility based on nearness to the source, ie Adonai, and determine how I can interpret one in light of the other.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 8/22/2008 4:33:11 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/22/2008 1:01:17 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Blue the thing is doesn't matter where the sacrific took place it is by the way it was presented. In the old testament you would read over and over again by the prophets. Starting with Samuel and continue onward to the others 1Sa. 15:22 Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifics as much as obeying the voice of the Lord. David wrote You do not delight sacrifice, or I would bring it you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God you will not despise. Ps51:16-17. Also we can see in Isa. 1:11 The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me? says the Lord. I have more than enough of burnt offerings, rams and the fatten animals; I find no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. Hos6:6 states For I desire mercy, not sacrific and acknowledgement of God rather burnt offerings.
So when we seek his face and his help in the matters in our life. He finds pleasure in that. I just don't understand that and please don't get me wrong with this. But if I was to get on my knees and do the requirements of the torah. If I ate the right food wash my hands before I ate all the time. Didn't touch dead bodies. But I hated another human or even to say which hits me hard. Even to have ill feelings towards another person. Then what I read is that my cries are not heard on high.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/22/2008 2:12:27 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Blue the thing is doesn't matter where the sacrific took place it is by the way it was presented. In the old testament you would read over and over again by the prophets. Starting with Samuel and continue onward to the others 1Sa. 15:22 Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifics as much as obeying the voice of the Lord. David wrote You do not delight sacrifice, or I would bring it you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God you will not despise. Ps51:16-17. Also we can see in Isa. 1:11 The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me? says the Lord. I have more than enough of burnt offerings, rams and the fatten animals; I find no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. Hos6:6 states For I desire mercy, not sacrific and acknowledgement of God rather burnt offerings.
So when we seek his face and his help in the matters in our life. He finds pleasure in that. I just don't understand that and please don't get me wrong with this. But if I was to get on my knees and do the requirements of the torah. If I ate the right food wash my hands before I ate all the time. Didn't touch dead bodies. But I hated another human or even to say which hits me hard. Even to have ill feelings towards another person. Then what I read is that my cries are not heard on high.
I'll answer your question. However, please do not lift my comments out of context. If you have a question just ask it. The comments regarding Samuel and David were in response to an inquiry related to sacrificing in the right place.
Now, you are correct. Sacrifices have never been "acceptable" to Adonai. They have always been outword expressions as is keeping any of the other commandments. Lifting commandments regarding sacrifices and put them up as the preeminant commandments has been done by others for various reasons. I do not consider them to be any greater than any other commandment.
That said, the principle of keeping part of Ha Torah and not keeping another being unacceptable is a point I wish to encourage. If one claims to have a right heart, feels comfortable or elated toward Adonai, speaks in tongues, and does any multitude of Mitzvot(good deeds), yet fails to run down his neighbors dog, when he sees it out, is not as close to Adonai as one should be.
So, to disregard one commandment because it is not enough, is to basically to throw out the entire Scriptures. Why should one follow Paul's admonitions, they are not sufficient either.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/22/2008 5:41:39 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
An eye for an eye is simple justice. Anything beyond an eye as punishment would be unfair and unjust punishment. Anything less would also be unfair and unjust punishment. Thank God Jesus has become the eye for an eye required under the law that allows us to receive mercy instead. There is nothing merciful or gracious about only having to pay an eye for an eye because the Egyptians would require more. It's exactly the punishment you deserve.
I suggest that you say this because you have been raised in a society that has been influenced by Ha Torah. Do you believe it is gracious to imprison a murderer rarher than execute them?
quote:
Jesus fulfilled the requirement for justice demanded by the law, while we enjoy mercy. An eye for an eye is not something the Spirit of God is speaking into the heart of the New Covenant believer today. It was in fact allowed under the law, being a legitimate 'voice' to embrace and act on as coming from God in the old covenant (but, as we know today, only a fool would do that). God's voice has changed in regard to that requirement. The requirement didn't go away. It got fullfilled in a new way that effectively releases us from the literal requirement of that law, but does not abolish that law. God's voice regarding that law has changed. The requirement of the law itself has not.
If I may coin a phrase of another poster. You made that up. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say Adonais voice has changed. If that is the case, how do we know it hasn't changed again as the Pope and Joseph Smith would have us believe.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Regarding, "The word of God is not always inhabited by his Spirit"
The one who said, "let there be..." dwelt with us in the person of Jesus Christ. That's what it means for the word, the voice of God, to be made manifest among us.
So, are you saying the one who said, "let there be...", Yeshua Ha Meshiach(Jesus the Christ) and Ruach Ha Chedoch(The Holy Spirit) are not in agreement?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
If we did not properly understand Ha Torah(The Word), as in the idea that an eye for an eye is the minimum that Ha Torah requires, that is one thing. However, to say Ha Ruach(The Spirit) does not indwell parts of The Word that became flesh and dwelt among us. This is very confusing to say the least.
I agree. That's why the understanding I just shared makes more sense. Jesus is the voice of God who was made manifest in the world for all to see, not a flesh and blood version of the words of Torah.
Let's be clear. The written Torah is subject to mistranslation, but that is not what we are discussing here. That is why I asked that we use the word "wriiten", so we would not be wasting time as we are here, That which Adonai spoke in times past(Ha Torah) is recorded in part in the written Torah. That was exemplified by Yeshua and is recorded in the written Gospels. We have no better view of The Gospel than we do of Ha Torah. We now of both of them by reading what has been written down. We then interpret them with the help of the wriitwn commentaries of the Psalms, Prophets and Epistles as guided by Ruach Ha Chedosh(The Holy Spirit).
So, let's stop this acting as if a written record of Adonai's revelation before the incarnation is somehow subject to greater scrutany then the written record of Adonai's revelation after the incarnation. If anything, the Apistolic Writings are more in question in this regard.
quote:
Which is my point exactly. Jesus gives us different guidance for dealing with people when we are wronged than that of the law. He retains the requirement for the testimony of two or three witnesses, but he removes the requirement for literal justice to be carried out by us. The law and the Spirit are not always one and the same thing.
You think the Spirit was given so we could walk in the letter of the law. But so much of what Jesus said disproves this. I say the Spirit was given to reveal the complete counsel of God above and beyond the letter of the law, but which does not nullify the fundamental requirements of the law. I've proven from my example that the law often tells us one thing, while the Spirit tells us another. Jesus did not come to tell us how to deal with those who sin against us according to the letter of the law, but rather according to the Spirit.
Then do you believe we should empty the prisons of murderers and not restrain child molestors?
By the way, I do not believe in the simple literal interpretation of the Scriptures. The Spirirt of Adonai has always been available to help us understand Adonai's ways. In times past some have not listen the His Voice and misinterpreted the written Torah. Among other things, Yeshua clarified the written Torah in word and deed, giving us a clearer understanding of how it should have always been understood. Even with that and further clarification in the epistles, there is still misinterpretation.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/23/2008 10:59:43 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 978
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Do you believe it is gracious to imprison a murderer rarher than execute them?
Yes, of course. The law requires that a murderer be put to death, which apart from any mitigating facts, is the just punishment for murder ('life for life...') . If we were all still under the Moasic system of law we'd have few, if any prisons. The problem with law is it makes little room for mitigating factors, and no room at all (that I know of) for premeditated offenses.
You can have the law. I'll go with the release we have in Jesus Christ from the harsh and unbending law. At least he'll forgive a premeditated offense if he sees that person is truly sorry for the offense to the point of repentance. The law does not have that provision. The law will not forgive premeditated rebellion. Another clear example of the difference between the law and the Spirit. Do you think David was justified because of the supposedly never changing voice of God found in the law? The law and the Spirit are two different things. Ask David.
And by the way, you do know the difference between justice/ mercy, and holding a grudge when you've been wronged, don't you?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...If I may coin a phrase of another poster. You made that up. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say Adonais voice has changed.
Let's compare a couple of things God has said about the same subject and test your assertion:
Under the law circumcision was a prerequisite for participating in the required Passover Feast:
"These are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him..." (Exodus 12:43-44)
Even Abraham and all his household had to be circumcised to not be found in violation of the covenant:
"14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14)
Not even you can argue that circumcision was absolutely required of God's people before and during the time of the law (and for argument's sake--and to avoid going down a bunny trail--let's agree that 'cut off' is not in reference to salvation).
Now compare the requirements of the law spoken by God to the voice of God through Paul:
"15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation." (Galatians 6:15)
If you say Paul was talking about circumcision counting toward salvation, that would mean he is saying being a new creation is what counts toward securing salvation. I'm confident there is no disagreement between me, you, and Paul that no one is saved by acting like a new creation. It's clear he's not talking about salvation in this verse but the importance of circumcision in the life of a believer after salvation.
The point I'm making is Paul is saying that the once binding and required stipulation of the law is no longer binding in the life of the believer. It counts for nothing. It's not required for salvation, and it's not required as an evidence of salvation. But it definately was required and commanded under the law. Paul's letter to the Galatians hardly qualifies as a commandment to be circumcised in keeping with the requirements of the law.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
If that is the case, how do we know it hasn't changed again as the Pope and Joseph Smith would have us believe.
By the Spirit. You're trying very hard to make the ministry of the Spirit the exact same ministry as the OT law. Their's too much evidence that disproves this. The Spirit is the main way that we know Joseph Smith is interpreting scripture wrong. It's all about the Spirit, Bluethread, not the written words.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
So, are you saying the one who said, "let there be...", Yeshua Ha Meshiach(Jesus the Christ) and Ruach Ha Chedoch(The Holy Spirit) are not in agreement?
No, that's not what I'm saying. Jesus and the Spirit are always in exact agreement. What I'm saying is some of the words he spoke in the past are no longer being spoken by the Spirit. You are entertaining a false premise to defend your doctrine, believing that every single word God has spoken is still being spoken today. Remember when he stripped Eli of the eternal covenant he made with Levi? His voice has changed in regard to that matter. Now his voice speaks of the covenant he has made through a new high priest. Just more evidence to show God isn't speaking the same things he spoke in centuries past. I know you see Levi as a brief interruption in the eternal priesthood of Christ, but it still represents a clear change in the voice of God. How can you not see that?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Then do you believe we should empty the prisons of murderers and not restrain child molestors?
I asked this before. It fits better here:
"...you do know the difference between justice/ mercy, and holding a grudge when you've been wronged, don't you?"
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
By the way, I do not believe in the simple literal interpretation of the Scriptures. The Spirirt of Adonai has always been available to help us understand Adonai's ways. In times past some have not listen the His Voice and misinterpreted the written Torah. Among other things, Yeshua clarified the written Torah in word and deed, giving us a clearer understanding of how it should have always been understood. Even with that and further clarification in the epistles, there is still misinterpretation.
True, but misinterpretation almost always comes down to not discerning the Spirit. The Spirit is the ultimate determining factor in whether one will properly discern the will of God. Hundreds of years of the reign of the law prove what I'm saying. That's why God had to send the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The thing we couldn't see in the law was not the ceremonial aspects of the law, it was the aspect of being a changed person that loves unconditionally like God does (pagans don't love unconditionally like God).
Almost all fringe teachings in the Church come from a Spirit-less reliance on black and white words. Error creeps into the Church from people who lean on written words alone and do not discern them with the wisdom of the Spirit. That's exactly what the law keeping camp is guilty of--reading words alone and not discerning the voice of the Spirit in this present day. That's why people like LBolt think God would have us under every single word of the law (including death penalties where they were prescribed) except that there are certain forces in control right now that prevent it's full implementation. The NT is our guide into discerning the voice of the Spirit, and understanding the written words of the OT in the wisdom of the Spirit.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2008 12:37:46 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3610
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
Here's an interesting concept I found in my studies:
RATIFYING THE TORAH ------
Romans 3:31 [Power New Testament]
Therefore do we cancel Torah through faith?
God forbid! But we cause Torah to stand.
[NLT Version]
Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean
that we can forget about the law? Of course not!
In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill
the law.
---------------------------------------------------------
sounds like ratification to me.
I think along the lines of ratifying the Constitution
when Washington and all those were getting it in place.
Just a thought.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/25/2008 7:24:16 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Do you believe it is gracious to imprison a murderer rather than execute them?
Yes, of course. The law requires that a murderer be put to death, which apart from any mitigating facts, is the just punishment for murder ('life for life...') . If we were all still under the Moasic system of law we'd have few, if any prisons. The problem with law is it makes little room for mitigating factors, and no room at all (that I know of) for premeditated offenses.
The construction of the paragraph above makes it hard for me to determine if you believe imprisonment is more gracious than the death penalty. Presuming that is what you mean then wouldn't the same apply to the comparison of removing someones eye and extened torture and death. That is my point in response tot your assertions
quote:
There is nothing merciful or gracious about only having to pay an eye for an eye because the Egyptians would require more.
quote:
You can have the law. I'll go with the release we have in Jesus Christ from the harsh and unbending law. At least he'll forgive a premeditated offense if he sees that person is truly sorry for the offense to the point of repentance. The law does not have that provision. The law will not forgive premeditated rebellion. Another clear example of the difference between the law and the Spirit. Do you think David was justified because of the supposedly never changing voice of God found in the law? The law and the Spirit are two different things. Ask David.
As shown above there is grace in the administration of the law. The concepts of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, the enactment of due process, trial by jury and other safegaurds not recognized in the USA, all come from Ha Torah.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Then do you believe we should empty the prisons of murderers and not restrain child molestors?
And by the way, you do know the difference between justice/ mercy, and holding a grudge when you've been wronged, don't you?
I believe I do, but, please tell me how you define these concepts and how such definitions provide for a safe and secure society, especially with regard to murderers and child molesters.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...If I may coin a phrase of another poster. You made that up. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say Adonais voice has changed.
Let's compare a couple of things God has said about the same subject and test your assertion:
So, you have derived this concept. I personally do not have a problem with deriving ones beliefs from comparing scriptures. However, since some seem to, I wanted to make sure that that was acceptable in our conversation. Ok, let's look at how you derived this concept.
quote:
Under the law circumcision was a prerequisite for participating in the required Passover Feast:
"These are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him..." (Exodus 12:43-44)
Even Abraham and all his household had to be circumcised to not be found in violation of the covenant:
"14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14)
Not even you can argue that circumcision was absolutely required of God's people before and during the time of the law (and for argument's sake--and to avoid going down a bunny trail--let's agree that 'cut off' is not in reference to salvation).
Here are your assertions. Circumcision was required for observance of Pesach. Circumcision was required for for adherance to the Covenant.
Your conclusion, circumcision was "absolutely required" of God's people before and during the time of the law.
First the conclusion does not follow due to a change in terminology, required and absolutely required. True, circumcision is required for observance of Pesach and the Covenant. However, as we know obserance of Pesach and the Covenant is on outward expression of the inward reality. If you did not notice, only Adonai passed through the fire at the inception of the Covenant. Thus, it is a unilateral covenant. Adonai agrees to be gracious to us under certain circumstances. If we put ourselves in those circumstances we recieve the benefit of that grace. We are not absolutely required to do anything. Only Adonai is. If we do not want His blessing we need do nothing.
Second, your conclusion doesn't follow because circumcision is not even mentioned before the Covenant. So, though it may have been handed down from Adam, the Scriptures do not tell us that.
quote:
Now compare the requirements of the law spoken by God to the voice of God through Paul:
"15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation." (Galatians 6:15)
If you say Paul was talking about circumcision counting toward salvation, that would mean he is saying being a new creation is what counts toward securing salvation. I'm confident there is no disagreement between me, you, and Paul that no one is saved by acting like a new creation. It's clear he's not talking about salvation in this verse but the importance of circumcision in the life of a believer after salvation.
The point I'm making is Paul is saying that the once binding and required stipulation of the law is no longer binding in the life of the believer. It counts for nothing. It's not required for salvation, and it's not required as an evidence of salvation. But it definately was required and commanded under the law. Paul's letter to the Galatians hardly qualifies as a commandment to be circumcised in keeping with the requirements of the law.
In comparison to "new creation", neither circumcision nor any other commandment has meant anything. This is a comparative statement, not an absolute one. If one has no desire to please Adonai, it doesn't matter what one does. Though observing Ha Torah without the proper intent means nothing, intent without action means nothing to. This is how it has always been.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
If that is the case, how do we know it hasn't changed again as the Pope and Joseph Smith would have us believe.
By the Spirit. You're trying very hard to make the ministry of the Spirit the exact same ministry as the OT law. Their's too much evidence that disproves this. The Spirit is the main way that we know Joseph Smith is interpreting scripture wrong. It's all about the Spirit, Bluethread, not the written words.
The Spirit has not visited me directly with the message that Joseph Smith is interpreting scripture wrong. I also know of no one who has recieved that direct revelation. Everyone I know points to the Scriptures to argue against morman theology. Even if we accept an assertion about someones direct revelation, one else could say that they have had direct revelation that circumcision is required. Then, what are we to do?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
So, are you saying the one who said, "let there be...", Yeshua Ha Meshiach(Jesus the Christ) and Ruach Ha Chedoch(The Holy Spirit) are not in agreement?
No, that's not what I'm saying. Jesus and the Spirit are always in exact agreement. What I'm saying is some of the words he spoke in the past are no longer being spoken by the Spirit. You are entertaining a false premise to defend your doctrine, believing that every single word God has spoken is still being spoken today. Remember when he stripped Eli of the eternal covenant he made with Levi? His voice has changed in regard to that matter. Now his voice speaks of the covenant he has made through a new high priest. Just more evidence to show God isn't speaking the same things he spoke in centuries past. I know you see Levi as a brief interruption in the eternal priesthood of Christ, but it still represents a clear change in the voice of God. How can you not see that?
Eli is not Levi. There are many Cohens to this day, so that promise still applies. Some have argued the Yeshua is a Levite, but let's let that go for now. Yeshua's priesthood does not negate the levitical priesthood, nor is the levitical priesthood a brief interuption. Yeshua's priesthood is superior. That is levitical priests are subject to Yeshua the Cohen Ha Gadol.
quote:
True, but misinterpretation almost always comes down to not discerning the Spirit. The Spirit is the ultimate determining factor in whether one will properly discern the will of God. Hundreds of years of the reign of the law prove what I'm saying. That's why God had to send the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The thing we couldn't see in the law was not the ceremonial aspects of the law, it was the aspect of being a changed person that loves unconditionally like God does (pagans don't love unconditionally like God).
This has always been the concept that has seperated the sheep from the goats. The Sprirt of Adonai has always been with those who truly serve Him.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 8/26/2008 12:20:19 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 978
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...The construction of the paragraph above makes it hard for me to determine if you believe imprisonment is more gracious than the death penalty.
Not gracious. Imprisonment is more merciful than the death penalty in regard to the law's 'life for life' requirement. Death is the expected, fair, and just penalty for murder. Anything short of that is merciful.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Presuming that is what you mean then wouldn't the same apply to the comparison of removing someones eye and extened torture and death.
Absolutely not. There is nothing merciful about 'an eye for an eye'. It is the just penalty for such a situation. Anything less than an eye is mercy. That's the point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...As shown above there is grace in the administration of the law. The concepts of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment...
That's not mercy, that's justice. Fair and equitable justice. There's nothing just about excessive and unfair punishment that doesn't fit the offense. God is a just God. There's no way around it. The law makes the just and deserved case against mankind. Don't confuse varying degrees of punishment designed to fit the offense with God's mercy. Justice is not mercy. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
